Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 November 10

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< November 9 November 11 >

November 10 edit

Template:Mabs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was redirect to Template:Abs. Primefac (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with {{abs}}. This one was created first, but the other has better spacing and default behavior. Any uses of this could simply be changed to the other. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to abs Abs is more developed as noted by nom and is recommended by WP:MATH. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Question for Trialpears, do we keep redirects for templates as a matter of practice, and can we transclude the redirect page name? Nevertheless, since "Mabs" is longer than "abs," why not just delete? What's the thinking here? Doug Mehus T·C 18:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Dmehus, because redirecting would be the easiest way to implement this, it is a logical redirect (Math abs) and a few users may use this out of habit and would have to look for the new template. I'll admit that it really doesn't matter in these low usage scenarios, but in general I'm in favor of keeping these. There is no technical reason not to use a redirect and they generate the exact same result. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Trialpears, Ah, okay. So, generally, if a deleted template has a lot of transclusions that would take awhile to substitute or otherwise update to the new template, then a redirect should be preferred? Also, if I've asked you a question, can I still close this when it shows up for closing, or am I now involved? Doug Mehus T·C 18:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Dmehus I wouldn't close this discussion if I was you. In your question it seems like you are/were in favor of deletion, which may be seen as you being involved. I admittedly have a higher standard in this question than most people, but since there are several active closers there really isn't any reason not to be careful. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Trialpears, True, to be safe, I will avoid closing. Oh, I noted the nom has just also supported a redirect. Doug Mehus T·C 19:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, yeah, I wasn't even thinking about a redirect. That's fine too, of course. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Trialpears and the nom above. Secondarily, I'd support deletion. --Doug Mehus T·C 19:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:BrewerPalette edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. after substituting into the article Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template, should be merged with the article. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm concerned about the underlying template, which is not particularly WP:Accessible. --Izno (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You put the notice before I can upload it in other articles.
Finally, I already know that it is not particularly accessible, like many graphic elements that are in the Wikipedia. I am very aware of the problems of vision. I am a physician, and years ago I created a blind typing program. I have a son and daughter ophthalmologists.
Jmarchn (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is a useful template for various uses that you can see soon. The combination proposed by Pppery is not productive from the second use it has. Starting this process of deletion without giving time to create new elements is precipitated. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pppery as it is only used by two articles, one of which is in the main namespace (Cynthia Brewer) and the other of which is in the Wikipedia namespace (Wikipedia:Coloring cartographic maps); however, that's not justification enough for keeping, I think. Now that I know how more how the XfD closing procedures work, we can easily orphan and substitute this template into the two articles. In the Wikipedia case, I'd recommend following Jmarchn's advice and make it more accessible. A fairly easy decision; I contemplated closing as delete, but seemed like a weak consensus to call as a non-admin, eh, Primefac?Doug Mehus T·C 03:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There was clearly not consensus to delete this before your !vote to delete. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Only a clear consensus should be closed by a non-admin, at least until they have sufficient experience and demonstrated ability to be able to handle more complicated cases. Primefac (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Primefac, thanks, that was my understanding. Pppery, agree completely. Doug Mehus T·C 03:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand the motivation to delete this template:
  1. Is it useful?. Although only used in two articles it is. It is not a template that does not have an application. I do not know any rule that says that if a template is used only in two articles this template must be destroyed.
  2. Can it be replaced by another similar template?. Clearly not.
  3. Interferes in other templates? Obviously no.
  4. Is it badly documented? Not only is a description of the use, but there are also examples.
  5. It is used in other wikis and I have not had any problems in its implementation.
Finally:
  1. I informed to Pppery that this template (and the module that it depends) will be necessary for a module (and derived templates) that I am improving (statistical diagrams), but they are not yet public.
  2. I noticed to Pppery that he had created modules without utility and that he had not deleted them.
  3. Humbly, I think that the credibility and actions of Pppery should be reconsidered. We are all losing precious time.
--Jmarchn (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • substitute and delete, single-use template. should also clean up the fixed number of columns which is bad for viewing on mobile devices. Frietjes (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:StagecoachGold edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 November 17. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Dragon Ball films edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Dragon Ball anime. A reasonable rationale provided by the nominator, which was supported unanimously and relisted a week ago. There are some logistical issues to work out post-close on the merger, but, presumably, there will be willing editors who have thoughts on this. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 18:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This template is redundant to Template:Dragon Ball anime: all but three articles in this navbox are already linked in the DB anime navbox. The other three articles include the official live action film (which can perfectly be linked in the main Template:Dragon Ball), and two unofficial films which may not even been linked in any DB navboxes at all since they do not belong to the franchise. The idea of this proposal is to avoid overlinking and duplicated links. --LoЯd ۞pεth 17:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Complete merge with {{Dragon Ball anime}}, including the 3 bottom groups. --Gonnym (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: @Gonnym:, merging into the {{Dragon Ball anime}} is not possible since the two bottom groups are for articles on live-action films (the bottom two are unofficial). That is why I proposed to move the official live-action film to the main {{Dragon Ball}}. --LoЯd ۞pεth 23:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that is the case, I oppose this proposal. There is a reason they are currently together and that is to make navigation between films possible. --Gonnym (talk) 07:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I have already explained, 22 out of 25 articles in this template are together and navigation between them is possible via the {{Dragon Ball anime}} navbox. Of the other 3, 2 are not even part of the franchise. --LoЯd ۞pεth 14:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've read what you wrote and and I've opposed your proposal. It matters not that it isn't part of the franchise, which is why they are "related". They have an article and linking to them is something that should be kept. Please leave your fandom for the franchise out of debates. --Gonnym (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complete merge with {{Dragon Ball anime}}, including the 3 bottom groups. Having related unofficial media isn't unusual for such navboxes. See for example the fandom section in {{Harry Potter}}. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 09:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Gonnym:, @Trialpears:, what do you think about giving the title of "Dragon Ball anime and films" to the {{Dragon Ball anime}}, with a section titled "Live-action films" including Evolution and the other two unofficial live-action films? That way, no article would be left out. --LoЯd ۞pεth 14:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you put together a demo version so I can see what you mean? Theoretically it sounds an ok solution, but a visual representation would help me be sure. --Gonnym (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox lok sabha constituency1 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is improper usage of Wikidata in several different ways. Firstly, it gets data from Wikipedia without any means of overriding it locally, which is not permitted by local policy. (And, I'm not lying, unlike the previous time I made this claim). Secondly, most of the data on Wikidata it depends on was removed by Mahir256 in May, causing every single use to complain about lack of data, meaning that the template clearly no longer serves a useful purpose. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I explained the removal of the data to @Mdmahir:, the creator of the template and module, and have defended this to @Johnuniq:, who asked about in on my Wikidata talk page in June. I continue to stand by these removals as misuses of the "point in time" Wikidata property. mahir256 (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In it's present form the template only serve to confuse readers with cryptic errors and redundant information, if the problems get resolved at the WikiData recreation with local override could be considered, but as it stands these infoboxes should be removed after an individual review to make sure no information is lost. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Unnecessary Template:Wikipedia information pages talk page editnotice uses edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. and salt (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More unhelpful {{Wikipedia information pages talk page editnotice}}s where the talk page it is on is used discuss something other than the information page it is parented to that will need to be deleted and salted (so they aren't immediately recreated by a bot) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I don't see any reason nwhy such pages should be deleted, and none is provided in this nom. Until they are, edit notices are approprioate. Nor dom I see any policy-based reason for deletion here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @DESiegel: The editnotice (for all three pages, they use the same template) says Please use this talk page to discuss issues specific to this information or how-to page. Taking Wikipedia talk:Short description as an example, I can only find four out of the eighteen discussions on that page and its last three archives that talking about the information page itself, rather than the thing it describes. Wikipedia talk:User scripts is even worse; the only discussion on that page or its most recent archive (dating back to 2017) that is actually about the page Wikipedia:User scripts rather than user scripts in general is Wikipedia talk:User scripts#What is "WP" in this context?. Wikipedia talk:Linter has a similar problem. Providing clearly wrong suggestions is a perfectly valid reason to delete an editnotice that was created with no human intervention. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These misrepresent the way these talk pages actually are used and should be deleted. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and, optionally, salt per nom...I'm not sure, can regular editors add editnotices to talk pages? If not, I'd favour the nom's rationale and concur with potentially salting. Also, Trialpears is correct, I think, in terms of these editnotices mispresenting how the talkpages should look. If I understood TP correctly, it's because these editnotices are too wide? At any rate, I see unnecessary duplication here. Doug Mehus T·C 03:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you misunderstood Trialpears; their any my problem is with the content of the editnotice, not its style. Deleting this template without salting it would simply result in a perpetual edit war between JJMC89 bot II, and the admins patrolling pages tagged as G4, so the salting is mandatory if this is deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pppery, Ah, okay, that makes sense. I'll remove the optionally. Doug Mehus T·C 18:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Eponymous medical signs for skeletal system and joints edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Orthopedic examination. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Eponymous medical signs for skeletal system and joints with Template:Orthopedic examination.
It is not useful for navigation to have navboxes divided into eponymous and other signs. A category would better story eponymous signs, and a merged template would offer better navigation for readers. The new template may need to be slightly renamed to accommodate this. Tom (LT) (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As I've said in other eponymous sign discussions: Separating our eponymous signs is not useful for navigation. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:D&DCreatList edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:D&DCreatList with Template:D&D creature list.
Both templates do the exact same thing and just vary by the variable name. The style of using single letters for parameters should not be merged, as that is a flawed system. Parameters should be easy to understand just by reading their name, without requiring researching. As such there really isn't anything to merge, but just replace one with the other. Gonnym (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: WP:BEFORE examination of the template description would have indicated that the single-letter parameter version was created specifically for use with the List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters to reduce the overall size of the page. I also point out that this merge discussion appears to have broken the template usage.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the link you've posted? What exactly in WP:BEFORE do you think I missed? List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters has a lot of problems. Completely duplicating an existing template (i.e. WP:TFD#REASON #2) is not a viable solution to any of them. If you really care about that page, how about fixing the multiple issues it has such as MOS:DONTHIDE, tables that violate WP:ACCESSIBILITY and a ton of information not remotely cited (WP:V). Also, if the issue is the page size, then follow WP:SIZERULE which says to split a page over 100k. This page is at 298k. Following the splitting guideline will also make your opposing issue moot. --Gonnym (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the description of the template you are proposing to merge, which says specifically that the reason for the abbreviated names was to reduce the size of the template? I have read the linked page, and contributed significantly to it. I have also argued against splitting, because it can't easily be split. I've even (once) modified this template - and reverted it quickly when I realized I'd broken a significant volume of things. And I'll reiterate - the merge warning has apparently broken the template as it stands now, and created a cascade failure which is affecting other templates, including the Reference template at the bottom of the page.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Self-correction: the linked page is currently broken because the repeated insertion of the merge message for the template creates a page too long to be completed. (Problem is with the template software inserting the message for each use of a heavily-used template.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: One of the problems raised for List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters in the past was its length, and the shortened template partly solves that, albeit at the expense of ease of use. As the use is explained in the template's description and can be seen in action, I think ease of use is not a big issue here, so I am against merging. Splitting has been discussed and so far rejected for topic-specific reasons. In addition, the recent deletion discussion(s) have even brought up opinions to make pages' scope broader rather than narrower, another argument against a split. Daranios (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now While I agree with the rationale in general, this would indeed break this ridiculous mess of a page. With these extra characters it seems like the post expansion size would hit the limit and the page not display properly. When the size issues are resolved I would however be all for deleting this template. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Module:Quid edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete and move to Module:Sandbox/Χ/Quid (alternate version). As noted by the nominator, Pppery, this template is unused and has never been transcluded anywhere. The template's creator, χ, has requested that if delete is the result, to move to his or her sandbox. Frietjes concurred with the nominator's deletion rationale, but didn't know whether Module:Sandbox/Χ/Quid was an older or newer version. An analysis of the source code at closing was inconclusive; thus, this is the result. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 03:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please move to sandbox if the conclusion is to delete.  chi (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_10&oldid=927529119"